David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ratio 21 (4):392-420 (2008)
The levelling down objection is the most serious objection to the principle of equality, but we think it can be conclusively defeated. It is serious because it pits the principle of equality squarely against the welfares of the persons whose welfares or resources are equalized. It suggests that there is something perverse about the principle of equality. In this paper, we argue that levelling down is not an implication of the principle of equality. To show this we offer a defence of, and partial elaboration of, what we call a common good conception of the principle of equality, which principle favours states in which everyone is better off to those in which everyone is worse off. We contrast this with what we call a purely structural conception of the principle of equality. The common good conception of equality involves two basic components: (1) in each circumstance there exists an ideal egalitarian distribution, which distributes equally all the available good in the distribution with the highest average welfare and (2) in evaluating how just the world is, it will matter how far the actual distribution is from the ideal distribution. The ideal egalitarian distribution in the circumstance is Pareto optimal and the approximation rule implies that Pareto superior states are less unjust than Pareto inferior states. 1.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Re'em Segev (2010). Hierarchical Consequentialism. Utilitas 22 (3):309-330.
Ben Saunders (2010). Fairness Between Competing Claims. Res Publica 16 (1):41-55.
Similar books and articles
Matthew Clayton (2001). Rawls and Natural Aristocracy. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 1 (3):239-259.
Azam Golam (2010). Distribution of Health Care Resources in LIC: A Utilitarian Approach. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Marc Ramsay (2005). Teleological Egalitarianism Vs. The Slogan. Utilitas 17 (1):93-116.
Karsten Klint Jensen (2003). What is the Difference Between (Moderate) Egalitarianism and Prioritarianism? Economics and Philosophy 19 (1):89-109.
Re'em Segev (2009). Second-Order Equality and Levelling Down. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (3):425 – 443.
Joseph Raz (2009). On the Value of Distributional Equality. In Stephen De Wijze, Matthew H. Kramer & Ian Carter (eds.), Hillel Steiner and the Anatomy of Justice: Themes and Challenges. Routledge.
Caj Strandberg (2001). Two Conceptions of Inequality. Philosophical Papers 30 (2):169–199.
Larry S. Temkin (2003). Equality, Priority or What? Economics and Philosophy 19 (1):61-87.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads102 ( #10,094 of 1,096,953 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #15,008 of 1,096,953 )
How can I increase my downloads?